Does anyone know of legal jobs that involve or allow for part-time work? I'm just curious, and would appreciate any and all leads you all have for niches in the field of law (or even outside of law, but suitable for people with a JD) that are amenable to part-time or flexible work.
Honestly, you're really close. I don't think you should give up.
Fun episode! I was so happy to finally hear from someone on the podcast who struggled with LG!
@ said:
@ said:
there's nothing wrong with using crisis hotlines, but everyone should be aware that they aren't as confidential as they claim. Many trace calls, and often send the police to come get people who call, even people who wanted to call "anonymously". Some people get picked up at work, even, or in other public places where people can see and it can ruin your job/life/reputation. More info here: https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/11/suicide-hotlines-trace-your-call/
I can't speak to other hotlines but I volunteer for a text line. [...]
If anyone is struggling, please don't NOT reach out out of fear that 911 will be called. They most likely will not be unless your life is in danger. If you need to talk to someone, reach out!!
You're giving anecdotal evidence about what happens at a single line. I linked to an article by investigative journalists that covers the swath of the "hotline" landscape. People who want help shouldn't be tricked or lied to either.
@ said:
Can’t agree more. I BR all the games even the relatively easier 5 min games and I BR each of them in two approaches, one with sub game boards (or some kind of setup or partial split) and one where I treat it as a rule driven game so to practice pushing out inferences and getting more comfortable and efficient with brute forcing when push comes to shove. I’m currently plateauing at a -2/-3 and I hope that in time and with intensive BR I’ll be able to pick up a point or two
Wow, so do you believe that almost any / every game can be done in both fashions (with sub game boards / a setup of some kind or without)?
there's nothing wrong with using crisis hotlines, but everyone should be aware that they aren't as confidential as they claim. Many trace calls, and often send the police to come get people who call, even people who wanted to call "anonymously". Some people get picked up at work, even, or in other public places where people can see and it can ruin your job/life/reputation. More info here: https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/11/suicide-hotlines-trace-your-call/
IF I would only READ the actual question stem I WOULD be fine..... ARGH!
#help
So how are we supposed to know when correlation (despite not equaling causation) lends support to an argument?!
#help
Isn't the method for strengthening questions to identify an assumption and then find an AC that bolsters that assumption? But for this question, if you try to do that it doesn't work out because there's no assumption you can find that would be strengthened by the correct AC... you're just trying to find evidence "pro" microprinting.
@ said:
Hello @ Doing 1-2 from the low 80s then a 1-3 from the low-mid 70s towards the beginning of the PT phase so I get a look and a feel to how the exam is different from the exams from 1-60. In addition after BR of the exams, and after more PTs it is recommended to go over past wrong answers try and find a trend and sure up when went wrong with the answer. When you do this you are still seeing newer-style questions while you are working in the 50s and 60s, so it is not a 'culture' shock when you go from the 50/60s to PTs in the high 80s.
Some people say the change is not that big others say is has a significant impact on there score, but I have found that getting like 5ish from the 70s and 80s gets a good base and people can see the difference from those and the other PTs they will take from the 40-60s.
interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain that!
> @ said:
> @ I feel this pain. I keep seeing LG talked about as 'the part anyone can work hard at and then they're good at it' while LR and RC are considered the real trials and tribulations.
>
> This weird split of dying to LG but breezing through the other sections has been my experience for the last six months. At the three month mark I only got up to ~ -8. Now at the sixth month mark I'm at ~ -1 so it does happen! Today I've only missed 5 questions out of 32 games.
>
> Doing 32 games a day... it is not fun.
Thank god there's another one out there-- I don't feel so strange! I don't know if we should count ourselves lucky that LG is our weakness or not. It's heartening to hear that you've gotten it down to -1!! Great job!
> @ said:
> Are you a philosophy or English major? Have you struggled in math or stem classes? Just a thought since I know people who are great at RC or LR to start with have a background in those first areas. I don't know if you are backwards from "everyone", rather the people who speak up most about struggling with a section happen to be people who are okay with logic games. Additionally I agree with what you're saying in that it is often assumed that LG is perfect or near perfect in many posts, which might be why people do not say that they struggle with it, since they think they are unusual. Just an anecdote, but I feel like it might be helpful for you. I am in an LSAT class with 9 other people, and only 3 of the 10 of us have ever gotten -0 on LG or even close. So that's 70% of this group where LG is still a major challenge for them. You are definitely not alone!
>
haha yes, you got me there-- I was a Classics major (which is essentially like being an English major, just different languages) with a concentration in ancient philosophy.
Thank you for your anecdote, it does make me feel a little bit better. I guess I thought that 3 months of solid studying just LG 5 days a week would put me further than I am... but I'm not giving up!
@ well that makes me feel a little better!
Honestly I think for me the hardest game I've ever done is still PT 21 S1 Q 18 - 24, which is also sequencing with a twist.
It's so strange to me that everyone seems to breeze over LG... even this post says, "accept that you're just not that good at LR and RC." Is it just assumed that LG is easy for the vast majority of people?!
I've been studying LG for 3 months solid and I'm going -10 still. Any time something I haven't seen before pops up (which feels like every time), I get stuck and feel I can barely complete the game. I'm still out here drilling and fool proofing LG.... ad nauseam.
Meanwhile I go -1 to -3 on RC generally, maybe -3 to -5 on LR...and without really having had to do too much. In fact, I score **_worse_** when I try to implement things I've learned on 7Sage in those sections... so I've just decided to go on intuition mostly. Why am I so backwards from everyone else?!
@ said:
Hello @ I would do a couple maybe 1 from the 80s or high 70s then 1-2 from the low 70s and see where I am at. After that I would drill from 1-35PT(and BR) and test (depending where you are and your goals) in the 50s 60s and then 3ish weeks before the actual exam take 1-2 Pts from the 80s to give you the best idea of how you are going to score on test day. This is what I would do if I was to redo my studies.
this is the exact sort of advice i was hunting for, thank you! Just curious if you can elaborate on why that is the way you would do it? I guess drilling 1-35 is obvious since its the Core Curriculum range.
Also, when JY broke out the carat ("^") in PT 27 S2 Q 20 - 24 a little part of me died.
this was the precise problem set where my confidence was shattered. I literally can't even foolproof some of them. Or maybe I can't bring myself to. Fine distinction. lol.
@ said:
Drill sections and drill question types until you feel that you're in a better place to meet your goals.
this may seem like a silly question, but how would you recommend to someone they know where to "safely" take sections for drilling from? I want to drill sections, but i feel like it "ruins" PTs.... I'm not sure how to keep balance.
I have read the book.... for me, beyond literally what the acronym CLIR stands for, it hasn't offered that much. I also don't enjoy her writing style. But I think it is helpful for breaking through on specific problem areas you have. In other words, I think maybe use it as a supplement but for me it hasn't seemed groundbreaking or really that helpful as a total approach, if that makes sense.
#help I got this wrong because (B) says "there has been a notable decline in the quality of books written in recent years." I took "books" to be distinct from "manuscripts." Books have already been published. They are objects/products. Manuscripts are what someone writes, which they hope will become a book one day by being published. Did anyone else have this issue?
@
That makes sense! When you view it from that POV it makes a lot more sense. Thanks!
@ said:
I graduated HS in 2003 , I am 36 and now going to law school, better late than never haha. I am also a mom and work full time so this is not easy! But, facing what's intimidating and difficult is what life is about, you'll do fine on the LSAT. I also disn't like standardized tests but here we are, we got this !
2002 HS Grad here! Go us!
#help I don't understand why B can't be correct.
The critic is narrating the story. In his telling, the art historian thinks that the definition of "mastery" depends on planimetricity whereas the critic himself thinks that the definition of "mastery" does not at all involve planimetricity. These are precisely "two different meanings of mastery", are they not?
@ said:
@
I think you're absolutely right that it's not rare to suffer homelessness or to have served in the military. [...] The way I see it, most people when they hit rock bottom, find themselves in the lowest of lows, are not able to find their way back up to the surface. It is a rare person who [...] develops the drive to find their way to not only climb back to the surface but up even higher - leading him to find his calling and passion in helping veterans like himself.
Good point! I guess that is probably quite true. I didn't quite think of it that way.
Making your way from Homelessness to Military and Back again, to Dartmouth and to acing the LSAT, sounds like Harvard material to me.
I think this is the part that confuses me. It seems like someone with good character or an interesting / strong person, for sure, but why or how that directly relates to Harvard still escapes me a bit. But I think it's good food for thought for me, and helps me realize that the personal statement is truly more about "getting to know the person" than I thought.
Thanks for your reply!
@ said:
@ I edited the original comment to add a takeaway + (and) to edit grammatical errors.
I'd toy with your mouse settings once you find a suitable mouse. Mine was more sensitive than I was used to so when moving my cursor to highlight on RC I would often overshoot my target until i turned down the sensitivity via the settings.
I'm confused why your mouse would be more sensitive than you are used to. Is the laptop you used to take the test borrowed from someone else?
The hosts of this podcast gush, "Reading this statement I can't imagine a law school that wouldn't want to admit this person immediately!" -- and the profiled student got into Harvard Law, so they must be right that this personal statement is amazing. But I don't get why it is.
It doesn't seem so rare to have experienced a short period of homelessness (about a month from what I gathered), or to have served in the military. It doesn't seem super unique to say "I learned that when motivated I can get to another level of drive and decide not to quit." I dont get why this is so amazing to Harvard Law or to the hosts of this podcast. "It gave me chills!" -- Really?
To be clear, I'm not at all trying to tear down Brad!! Because there's nothing at all wrong with any of this and he has overcome things--as have we all! But as a piece of writing, and as an example of serving something to admissions committees on a silver platter that makes them salivate wildly, I'm just not getting why this is it. What do law schools really want to see in you from a personal statement?
I'm sure that I'm fundamentally not understanding what it is that makes a personal statement "great" or even what makes an applicant appealing to a law school.
I am excited that Brad is going to use his training to serve vets and the homeless, that part for me (if I was an admissions person) would be the stuff--but the hosts of the podcast spend the least time talking about that!